Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[JENKINS-29922] Verifying behavior of `properties` step with simplified syntax #22

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Jul 28, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@jglick
Copy link
Member

jglick commented Jul 27, 2016

@abayer abayer closed this Jul 27, 2016

@abayer abayer reopened this Jul 27, 2016

@abayer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

abayer commented Jul 27, 2016

Closing/reopening for a merge conflict.

@abayer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

abayer commented Jul 27, 2016

Ok, that conflict is real, so 🐛

@@ -118,7 +146,9 @@
@SuppressWarnings("deprecation") // RunList.size
@Test public void useBuildDiscarder() throws Exception {
sampleRepo.init();
sampleRepo.write("Jenkinsfile", "properties([[$class: 'BuildDiscarderProperty', strategy: [$class: 'LogRotator', numToKeepStr: '1']]])");
sampleRepo.write("Jenkinsfile", HAVE_SYMBOL ?
"properties([buildDiscarder(logRotator(numToKeepStr: '1'))])" :

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@kohsuke

kohsuke Jul 27, 2016

Member

Maybe not directly related to this PR, but this array syntax is ugly. Can't we do blown-up closure like

properties {
  buildDiscarder(logRotator(numToKeepStr:1))
}

And also, we want more human readable overload for this guy, maybe something like

properties {
  discardBuild '2d'
}
@kohsuke

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

kohsuke commented Jul 27, 2016

Change itself LGTM, so 🐝 assuming the merge conflict is resolved.

@reviewbybees

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

reviewbybees commented Jul 27, 2016

This pull request originates from a CloudBees employee. At CloudBees, we require that all pull requests be reviewed by other CloudBees employees before we seek to have the change accepted. If you want to learn more about our process please see this explanation.

@abayer

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

abayer commented Jul 28, 2016

Merge conflict gone, so 🐝

@jglick jglick merged commit 2c9681a into jenkinsci:master Jul 28, 2016

1 check passed

Jenkins This pull request looks good
Details

@jglick jglick deleted the jglick:shell-class-JENKINS-29922 branch Jul 28, 2016

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.